Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defective goods

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2021

HIGHLINE UNITED ASIA LTD v. TRIPLE 8 LICENSING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 917
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2148/2014

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary record Highline, not Ash HK, was the contracting party to the SS14 Order; the Ash Philippines Agreement did not govern the SS14 Order; T8 failed to adduce any evidence of defects and therefore its defence of defective goods failed; Highline proved the invoiced sums for the SS14 Order and for the Miscellaneous Goods and judgment was entered for those amounts with costs payable by Triple 8 Licensing Co Limited.
30 Jun 2015

RILONG GARMENT FACTORY v. AMTEX ASIA LTD

Citation

RILONG GARMENT FACTORY v. AMTEX ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1676/2013

Contemporaneous documents from the defendant admitting inability to pay and failing to mention defects are inconsistent with the later allegation that the goods were basically worthless; taken with lack of credible particulars and implausible explanations, the defendant has no real or bona fide defence and the counterclaim is unsustainable, therefore leave to appeal and stay of execution are refused and costs are awarded to the plaintiff.
7 Nov 2013

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD

Citation

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2038/2012

The court found a single contract (or contracts so closely connected) and that the Plaintiff had effectively conceded defects in the goods; the Defendant's counterclaim arises from the same contract and may be set off against the Plaintiff's claim; accordingly the Plaintiff's summons is dismissed because it would be inequitable to permit recovery without accounting for the counterclaim.
21 Jun 2013

FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO., LTD v. WINMOST ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO., LTD v. WINMOST ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1894/2010

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove breach of the statutory implied terms or other contractual breaches: the defect lists were inconsistent, late and constituted hearsay and were unreliable; the plaintiff did not prove that any defects rendered the goods unmerchantable; the short delivery allegation was unproven; the as-built drawings claim was not properly pleaded; and the oral agreement to return the first lot of veneer was not established.
8 May 2012

YU CHIU WOON JACKY trading as EVER GAIN (HK) ENTERPRISE V. RAYTRON (H.K.) CO., LIMITED

Citation

YU CHIU WOON JACKY trading as EVER GAIN (HK) ENTERPRISE V. RAYTRON (H.K.) CO., LIMITED
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4087/2010

Claimant failed to prove the ROMs were defective: no primary evidence (no expert report or AQL report for the disputed deliveries), claimant's evidence found unreliable and inconsistent, and defendant's witnesses credible. Secondary evidence and defendant's internal reports did not establish a manufacturing defect attributable to Raytron. Consequently claimant's claim dismissed and defendant's undisputed counterclaim for HK$288,152 succeeded.
8 Jul 2011

XPOLY RECYCLING LTD v. GOLD LEADER ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

XPOLY RECYCLING LTD v. GOLD LEADER ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2011

The judge below applied the wrong test in granting unconditional leave to defend; the alleged oral settlement lacks merit because the defendant countermanded payments and elected to revert to original remedies, and the defective goods defence is weak but not so insubstantial as to preclude trial; accordingly unconditional leave was set aside and substituted with conditional leave to defend on payment of US$42,750 into court within 28 days, failing which the plaintiff may enter interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed.
22 Feb 2011

WING TAT HABERDASHERY CO LTD v. ELEGANCE DEVELOPMENT & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

WING TAT HABERDASHERY CO LTD v. ELEGANCE DEVELOPMENT & INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ775/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: the judge found the majority of tapes were acceptable (only 16.01% required replacement), the defendant had been warned of re-dyeing side effects, the plaintiff's acceptance of limited defect was consistent with the evidence, and a 50% apportionment of blame for avoidable loss was a fair assessment on the available evidence; there were no valid grounds to vary the cost orders.
18 Oct 2010

BLISS ELECTRONIC (HK) CO LTD v. BILLWIN LTD

Citation

BLISS ELECTRONIC (HK) CO LTD v. BILLWIN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ34/2009

Billwin failed to prove defectiveness or short delivery and therefore had no right to deduct; Bliss Electronic validly withheld the remaining 6,693 pieces under s44 Sale of Goods Ordinance and validly accepted Billwin's repudiation after giving time; Bliss Electronic entitled to recover price of goods sold and delivered and price of undelivered goods as damages; Billwin's counterclaim for late delivery was dismissed for failure to prove breach, causation and quantum.
10 Aug 2010

FOREGREAT ENTERPRISES (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. PRECIEUX GARMENT MANUFACTORY CO LTD

Citation

FOREGREAT ENTERPRISES (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. PRECIEUX GARMENT MANUFACTORY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA797/2009

The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of defective quality because the returned fabric was used by Suxing to make garments accepted by Esprit and the defendant's quality reports overall showed compliance; therefore there was no basis for unconditional leave to defend and the Master's judgment was correctly entered.
7 Apr 2010

KINFORM LTD v. TSUI LOI AND OTHERS

Citation

KINFORM LTD v. TSUI LOI AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3854/2009

Summary judgment was refused because the defendants disclosed triable issues: contested factual questions on defective quality, credible evidence that Kinform (through Chow) accepted rejection of the goods, and a real dispute as to whether Tsui or Ho Man contracted for the goods; these matters involve credibility and conflicting evidence that require a trial. The charge over the HOS flat was prima facie void under Housing Ordinance s17B and the O.86 application was withdrawn.